Community Campaign for Heroin Reform
Fact sheet

[ History | Drug Trade | Death | Public Opinion | Talking Tough |
Prohibition | Hypocrisy | Harm Minimisation vs. Zero Tolerance ]

There are many misconceptions about heroin. This is a summary of the main arguments (fact versus fiction):

History

In many cultures opium is still used as a pain killer or social relaxant. Heroin was used as a medically prescribed painkiller in Australia until the 1970s. Heroin was only prohibited in western societies in the early years of the 20th century.

Drug trade

Annual turnover in illegal drugs is approximately 8% of total international trade, that is $600 billion annually (1997 figure supplied from the World Drug Report compiled by the United Nations International Drug Control Program).

Death

Myth: illicit drugs should be prohibited because they pose greater harm to society than other drugs.

Reality: last year, 18,200 people died because of cigarette-related illness in Australia (less than 1,000 people died from heroin overdose in this period). One fifth of all deaths are drug-related: tobacco 72%, alcohol 25%, illicit drugs 3%. For 15-34 year-olds the corresponding figures are alcohol 62%, illicit drugs 34%. (Wodak, 1996). Over half of all heroin overdoses are, in fact, not due to heroin alone; they are due to a mix of heroin and pills or alcohol (Vivaids Magazine Issue 5, Vol. 4, 1997).

Public opinion

Myth: public opinion supports a "get tough on drugs stance".

Reality: Surveys indicate that a majority of Australians support a medically supervised heroin trials (surveys show that 53% of Victorians are in favour of heroin trials, while 52% support safe injecting venues). Even Neil Comrie, Chief Commissioner of the Victorian Police, supports heroin trials. Who was John Howard speaking for when he decided to block heroin trials in Canberra? His reluctance to embrace an open-minded option seems to be based on ideological and moral grounds. Not surprisingly, he never provides any statistics to support his stance.

Talking Tough

Commonly used phrases such as "drug war", "drug menace" and "zero tolerance" are designed to mask the real issues and used to justify additional spending on search, surveillance and law enforcement. Common to all of these policies: blame the drug, not prohibition; blame the addict, not the system that created the paradigm. It is rather ironic that in an era where social, racial and gender inequality is questioned, the entrenched stigma and prejudice associated with heroin use persists.

Prohibition

Myth: prohibition will reduce illicit drug use and minimise the associated costs to society.

Reality: prohibition achieves the exact opposite. Prohibition doesn't work: some drugs are illegal, others freely available. The prohibition of alcohol in America during the 1920s resulted in a proliferation of illegal distilleries, producing dodgy alcohol and only serving to line the pockets of black-marketeers. How would the millions of alcoholics and social drinkers in Australia today survive if forced to beg, borrow or steal to support an alcohol addiction in the knowledge that they had no guarantee of product quality, while being forced to consume in lanes, alleys and toilet blocks under imminent threat of arrest? Like heroin addicts?

Why don't we take the heroin market out of the hands of international crime syndicates, instead placing the monitoring of its use and access within the realm of the public health network, or incorporate heroin into existing treatment programs?

Hypocrisy

Why are heroin users stigmatised, marginalised and criminalised in a society that bends over backwards to help people afflicted with other addictions: smoking, gambling, drinking, etc? Why does the government regulate the tobacco market (and therefore claim millions of dollars in tax revenue each year) but not heroin? If nicotine and alcohol can be regulated and the health of users maintained by the community purse, then surely funding for research into treatment, etc., for other commonly used drugs should be readily available.

Harm Minimisation vs. Zero Tolerance

Zero tolerance aims to eliminate all illicit drug use through law enforcement, ie. more cops with even wider powers of search and seizure, larger prisons and stiffer jail sentences. The Government's "Tough on Drugs" policy from last year promised $23.4 million in spending for the Australian Federal Police, $31.5 million in protecting our borders, yet only $10 million in helping people "kick the habit". The greatest irony of all: people convicted on drug use charges may be sent to jail where illicit drugs are readily available but treatment isn't. 74% of repeat offenders are heroin addicts. Furthermore, it costs roughly $45,000 to house one inmate in prison for a year. The cost of an intensive rehabilitation program for the same period is about $16,500.

Harm minimisation involves: increased efforts aimed at community education on drug issues; the establishment of facilities in which drug users can safely inject and access other health and social services; the trial of affordable, pure heroin to registered users; more funding to make treatment, detox and rehabilitation places available to all who want them on demand and increased funding for and access to needle exchange services.

Myth: by adopting a policy of "harm minimisation" the government is condoning drug use, encouraging people to dabble in drugs such as heroin and sending the "wrong message to our children".

Reality: There is no evidence to suggest that an upsurge in heroin use would eventuate from such reform, while the message implied from prohibition and zero tolerance is that if we bury our head in the sand and keep filling the coffers of law enforcement agencies the drug scourge will be eradicated. Who's fooling who?

Back to CCHR main page.